Opinion
Civil Action No. 3: 03-CV-2088-B.
January 21, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is briefing on Defendant Oak Farms Dairy's ("Defendant") Request for Attorney's Fees resulting from its Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. After review of the briefing, the Court DENIES Defendant's Request for Attorney's Fees.
Defendant requests attorneys' fees from Plaintiff Valencia Mansker ("Plaintiff") for her refusal to sign the settlement agreed to by the parties. Instead, Plaintiff asserted that she had not agreed to settle her case. Following an evidentiary hearing on December 20, 2004, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and ordered Defendant to file briefing on its request for attorneys' fees so that the Court could determine if fees were appropriate. Defendant complied, and the Court now turns to Defendant's arguments.
Because there was no demonstration by Defendant that Plaintiff's Title VII claims were "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation," Defendant may not be awarded fees pursuant to Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (2003 Supp. 2004); Christianburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). Thus, Defendant must rely on the Court's inherent power to sanction litigants. Any sanction under the Court's inherent authority, however, must be accompanied by a specific finding of bad faith. Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 722-23 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating the court must find that `the very temple of justice has been defiled' by the conduct). Here, the Court does not find that Plaintiff was acting in bad faith, even though Defendant ultimately prevailed on its Motion. Therefore, the Court will not use its inherent power to sanction Plaintiff.
Because there is no statutory authority to award attorneys' fees to Defendant following its Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and the Court does not find that Plaintiff was acting in a harassing or bad faith manner, the Court DENIES Defendant's Request for Attorney's Fees.
SO ORDERED.